Speaker 1: A lot went down on Capitol Hill today, a lot
Speaker 1: of which you probably didn't hear about. But one man
Speaker 1: was there to do the job of many. He refuted
Speaker 1: the Democrats arguments for upending our election system, he shot
Speaker 1: down the Democrats arguments for taking all of our guns,
Speaker 1: and most impressively of all, he tweeted the whole time.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles, this is verdict with Ted Cruz. Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: I want to hear everything that happened today. It seemed
Speaker 1: as if you were in multiple places at once, hearings
Speaker 1: on guns, hearings on the Corrupt Politicians Act. And there
Speaker 1: was a charge that while you were tweeting during all
Speaker 1: of this, that it was just your staff sort of
Speaker 1: tweeting on your behalf while you were in the Senate.
Speaker 1: I have to ask, I know, you'll shoot straight here.
Speaker 1: Were you the one tweeting? Oh yeah, that was me.
Speaker 1: I was live tweeting. The look when you're in a
Speaker 1: room with senator who are droning on and on and on,
Speaker 1: particularly when they're reading from like staff has written a
Speaker 1: couple of pages of like text for them to read.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit like the student and Charlie Brown
Speaker 1: listening to the teacher, and the teacher goes wa wah wah,
Speaker 1: wah wah. And the truth of the matter is, like
Speaker 1: most senators are on their phones and are scrolling through
Speaker 1: email or text or this, being the social media world
Speaker 1: that it is, I was on Twitter, and then of
Speaker 1: course some lefty publications saw me on Twitter on c
Speaker 1: SPAN and so tweeted about me being on Twitter on
Speaker 1: c SPAN, and so I promptly retweeted them and said, yep,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right, and they were sort of surprised, going,
Speaker 1: holy crap, is he retweeting us. It's like, yes, I am,
Speaker 1: and uh. And in fact that they made fun of
Speaker 1: me because Amy Klobuchar was giving some long, long speech
Speaker 1: that I suppose somebody somewhere listened to, but but nobody
Speaker 1: in the room did, and they were shocked that I
Speaker 1: was on my phone for that, and I just said, well,
Speaker 1: she's still reading her statement even after your tweet. Well,
Speaker 1: you obviously wear many hats. You're a senator, you're a
Speaker 1: podcast host, you are often the booking producer on this show.
Speaker 1: So I'm not at all surprised to hear that it
Speaker 1: was actually you on Twitter. So you were covering it. Actually,
Speaker 1: I mean, we're joking about the Twitter of it all,
Speaker 1: but it is important that you were communicating this and
Speaker 1: shedding light on what was going on. You were in
Speaker 1: multiple places. Yeah, look, and there's value to that. I was.
Speaker 1: So the day started off, I went to a TV
Speaker 1: studio and did did Fox News in the morning to
Speaker 1: talk about the markup that was coming on HR one
Speaker 1: or S one, which is the big election federal takeover
Speaker 1: of elections bill that is the top priority for Democrats.
Speaker 1: And what we had today was what's called the markup.
Speaker 1: The markup is when you actually take the bill and
Speaker 1: you consider amendments to it, and the rules could comte
Speaker 1: in the Senate as the committee that has jurisdiction. I'm
Speaker 1: on the Rules Committee. Actually, interesting bit of trivia. I
Speaker 1: was put on the Rules Committee as a brand new
Speaker 1: baby freshman, which is relatively unusual for newly elected senators
Speaker 1: in my case nine years ago, to be put on it.
Speaker 1: And actually the reason Mitch McConnell asked me to serve
Speaker 1: on the committee is that the Rules Committee has jurisdiction
Speaker 1: over campaign finance reform legislation. And he asked me at
Speaker 1: the time, he said, look, when the Democrats come with
Speaker 1: some horrible campaign finance legislation, Ted, I'd like you to
Speaker 1: lead the fight against this, and that's sort of like,
Speaker 1: you know, throw me in that briar patch. I am
Speaker 1: eager to defend the first Amendment to stop the Democrats'
Speaker 1: efforts to undermine democracy, and so I was happy to
Speaker 1: do it then. And this is the most dramatic time.
Speaker 1: And so the markup started at ten am and it
Speaker 1: wrapped up about seven pm. So it went about nine
Speaker 1: hours straight and during the course of it, we had, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know thirty or forty different amendments. I filed
Speaker 1: forty six amendments, and so we brought up amendment after
Speaker 1: amendment debating the bill. The bill is a really bad bill,
Speaker 1: and I do hope and think that the markup today
Speaker 1: highlighted just how extreme, just how partisan the bill is,
Speaker 1: and I think the Democrats ended up casting some really
Speaker 1: bad votes today that underscores their top priority is staying
Speaker 1: in power. What this bill is all about is keeping
Speaker 1: Democrats in power for the next hundred years, and they're
Speaker 1: really trying to rig the game to do that. And
Speaker 1: I think the most important function of the markup today
Speaker 1: was to highlight how they're doing it. So you you
Speaker 1: mentioned here the campaign finance angle. It actually sort of
Speaker 1: surprised me because I had forgotten how broad this bill is.
Speaker 1: When I think of S one HR one, we're calling
Speaker 1: it the Corrupt Politicians Act. The In my mind, this
Speaker 1: was about changing the rules for congressional elections and federalizing
Speaker 1: those those rules that would ordinarily be made by the states.
Speaker 1: But then you're reminding me there's a campaign finance aspect
Speaker 1: to it. There. Could you just take us through a
Speaker 1: little bit of specifically that portion, but but sort of
Speaker 1: all the all the pieces of this legislation. Sure. So
Speaker 1: this thing is nearly nine hundred pages long, and it
Speaker 1: is every bad idea every left wing advocacy group has
Speaker 1: had over the last twenty years to try to change
Speaker 1: elections to make sure that Democrats always win. So what
Speaker 1: does the bill do? Well, let's start with what does
Speaker 1: it mean? HR one or S one. Nobody knows what
Speaker 1: that means. HR one means it is the very first
Speaker 1: bill filed by Democratic leadership in the House. S one
Speaker 1: means it's the first bill filed by Democratic leader leadership
Speaker 1: in the Senate. It means it's their number one priority. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so just pause for a second and think about
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are telling you. Their top priority isn't COVID,
Speaker 1: it's not back nations, it's not jobs, it's not reopening schools.
Speaker 1: Their top priority is staying in power, and that trumps
Speaker 1: everything else. Now, what does this bill do. Well, it
Speaker 1: federalizes elections. It puts the federal government in charge of
Speaker 1: elections across this country. One of the things it does is, look,
Speaker 1: we've got fifty states. States generally administer of elections and
Speaker 1: they pass laws governing how elections are handled. This bill,
Speaker 1: which many of us are calling, as you noted, the
Speaker 1: Corrupt Politicians Act, what it does is it essentially repeals
Speaker 1: virtually every state voter integrity law. Now what does that mean. Here,
Speaker 1: here's some examples. Voter ID twenty nine states require some
Speaker 1: form of identification to vote. You think about it, it's
Speaker 1: a common sense provision. Seventy five percent of Americans support
Speaker 1: photoid for voting. By the way, that's true, sixty percent
Speaker 1: of Democrats support photo for voting. Seventy seven percent of
Speaker 1: Independence support photoid for voting. Sixty percent of African Americans
Speaker 1: support photo ID for voting. What does the Corrupt Politicians
Speaker 1: Act do It repeals every one of those laws. It
Speaker 1: makes it illegal for a state to require voter id Likewise,
Speaker 1: ballot harvesting, all right, what is ballot harvesting? It is
Speaker 1: a particularly corrupt practice where you send in a paid
Speaker 1: political operative to collect the ballots of other peoples. Why
Speaker 1: is that corrupt? Well, because let's say you have an
Speaker 1: operative from the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, who goes
Speaker 1: into a nursing home where you have a bunch of
Speaker 1: people who are elderly, some of whom may not even
Speaker 1: be capable of making decisions. With ballot harvesting, these operatives
Speaker 1: help them fill out their ballots, including people that may
Speaker 1: not be competent to make those decisions. And it invites
Speaker 1: voter fraud because number one, they can prompt the people
Speaker 1: to vote the way the operative wants them to. Number Two,
Speaker 1: if the operative sees how they vote, Let's suppose you
Speaker 1: have a senior who stubbornly votes for Donald Trump instead
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden, the corrupt operative can take that ballot
Speaker 1: and throw it in the trash. It is dangerous when
Speaker 1: you have an employee of a political campaign handling the
Speaker 1: ballots of other people. That's why thirty one states either
Speaker 1: prohibit or restrict ballot harvesting. What does the Corrupt Politicians
Speaker 1: Act do? It repeals every one of those restrictions, and
Speaker 1: it mandates ballot harvesting. Likewise, this bill mandates universal mail
Speaker 1: in ballots, It mandates drop boxes everywhere, both of which
Speaker 1: are very susceptible to fraud. It also provides for welfare
Speaker 1: for politicians. Is this one of the more egregious elements
Speaker 1: of it? That it provides for a six to one
Speaker 1: federal government match for money raised in increments under two
Speaker 1: hundred dollars. So if you raise two hundred dollars, the
Speaker 1: federal government gives you twelve hundred dollars to match that.
Speaker 1: That is a particularly idiotic proposal, as I observed at
Speaker 1: the hearing today. If you think of all of the
Speaker 1: populations in need of welfare and need of subsidies, in
Speaker 1: need of supports, politicians are really near the bottom of
Speaker 1: that list. Yeah. And I'll tell you, Michael, the provision
Speaker 1: that I think is most naked, that makes most obvious
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are doing is the Federal Election Commission.
Speaker 1: It was established after Watergates. So Watergate was a big scandal,
Speaker 1: campaign finance scandal. They created the Federal Elections Commission in
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies. It's a bipartisan commission. There are three
Speaker 1: Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners. The reason they did that
Speaker 1: is they wanted it to be for the FEC to act,
Speaker 1: it had to be bipartisan agreement. You had to get
Speaker 1: at least four commissioners, meaning you had to get at
Speaker 1: least one from the opposing party. What does the Corrupt
Speaker 1: Politicians Act do. It turns it into a partisan organization.
Speaker 1: It leaves it with three Democratic commissioners and only two
Speaker 1: Republican commissioners, which means the FEC becomes essentially the attack
Speaker 1: dog for Chuck Schumer. And it's designed. What the intention
Speaker 1: of this would be is to use it to target,
Speaker 1: to persecute, to investigate Republicans, and by the way, to
Speaker 1: do it in all likelihood a month or two before
Speaker 1: the election, right when they're vulnerable, to have an October
Speaker 1: surprise of guess what, every Republican in a close race,
Speaker 1: the Chuck Schumer Federal Election Commission is going to announce
Speaker 1: an investigation into some scandalous aspect of them. It's a
Speaker 1: really bad idea, and that's what this bill does. So
Speaker 1: it's amazing because I've been reading the headlines on this bill,
Speaker 1: but when you see it all laid out all of
Speaker 1: these things, it's it's such a major bill. And yet
Speaker 1: that's not all you were doing today. There was another
Speaker 1: major issue. So while the Democrats are trying to ram
Speaker 1: down which I think you put it very well, the
Speaker 1: most radical legislation you've seen in your time, there perhaps
Speaker 1: perhaps rivaled only by the Equality Act or something like that.
Speaker 1: And Michael, it's much more dangerous than the Equality Act
Speaker 1: because it's designed to rig the system. So two of
Speaker 1: the provisions that are most dangerous in the Corrupt Politicians Act.
Speaker 1: So one is automatic voter registration. So any individual that
Speaker 1: has any interaction with the government. So if you get
Speaker 1: a welfare check, get an unemployment check, if you get
Speaker 1: a driver's license, if you go to a state college
Speaker 1: or university, you're automatically registered to vote. Now, that is
Speaker 1: intended to and will, in fact, if it's enacted, register
Speaker 1: millions of illegal aliens to vote, because there are anywhere
Speaker 1: from eleven to twenty million illegal aliens in the country.
Speaker 1: The estimates vary a large a significant percentage of that group.
Speaker 1: We don't have an exact estimate, but it is in
Speaker 1: the millions by any way you assess it is interacting
Speaker 1: with the government. And all of these who are interacting
Speaker 1: with the government, this bill is designed to automatically register them.
Speaker 1: Not only that a number of states have very reasonable
Speaker 1: provisions that provide that criminals can lose their right to vote.
Speaker 1: That if you commit a horrific crime, a number of
Speaker 1: states have said you can forfeit your right to vote.
Speaker 1: What does the Corrupt Politicians Act do. It strikes down
Speaker 1: every one of those laws. It says criminals the instant
Speaker 1: they're released from jail can vote. And the reason for
Speaker 1: this is Democrats have decided, and I think quite reasonably,
Speaker 1: that having millions of illegal aliens vote, and thousands or
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals and felons vote,
Speaker 1: that those individuals are likely to vote for Democrats and
Speaker 1: it will benefit Democrats. This is all about keeping Democrats
Speaker 1: in power. So during the course of the day, in
Speaker 1: the markup, as I said, I had forty six amendments.
Speaker 1: I introduced an amendment to provide that before anyone is
Speaker 1: automatically registered to vote, you have to verify citizenship, that
Speaker 1: you're not registering someone illegal. Of course, every Democrat voter
Speaker 1: know that amendment was voted down. I introduced another amendment,
Speaker 1: so a portion of this law grants amnesty, grants immunity
Speaker 1: to any illegal alien who's illegally registered to vote because
Speaker 1: of the automatic registration. Look at the bill anticipates millions
Speaker 1: of illegal aliens are registered to vote, and so it
Speaker 1: grants amnesty. It says they're not liable. There's no criminal liability,
Speaker 1: no civil liability. They're completely immune from any exposure for
Speaker 1: being illegally registered to vote. I introduced it amendments to
Speaker 1: just strip that. That is so radical, and I feel
Speaker 1: people may not appreciate that. On the one hand, Democrats
Speaker 1: are saying this bill absolutely will not register illegal aliens
Speaker 1: to vote, and also when they are, they'll get amnesty
Speaker 1: for it. That's in the same bill. It is the
Speaker 1: same bill. The Democrats argued, no illegal aliens will be
Speaker 1: registered to vote. I said, great, then you should vote
Speaker 1: for my amendments. If it's not registering anyone, then you
Speaker 1: ought to welcome these amendments. They're like, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we can't have that. Have the amendments so I introduced
Speaker 1: a narrow amendment, just say, let's get rid of the amnesty.
Speaker 1: If nobody's registered illegally to vote, what's the value of
Speaker 1: creating a special amnesty for people who are illegally registered
Speaker 1: to vote. Every Democrat voted no. They voted it down
Speaker 1: on the criminals. All right, here's a very funny thing.
Speaker 1: So I had a whole series of amendments allowing states
Speaker 1: to prevent criminals from voting. The first amendment that got
Speaker 1: called up was from Senator Hyde Smith, and it was
Speaker 1: an amendment focused on child molesters, and it said, people
Speaker 1: that commit crimes against children, states can prevent them from voting.
Speaker 1: And one of the things I did going into this meeting,
Speaker 1: I sat down before the markup with Mitch McConnell. I said,
Speaker 1: down with Roy Blonde, who's the ranking Republican on the committee,
Speaker 1: and we lay it out a strategy for fighting this.
Speaker 1: And so I drafted a whole bunch of amendments. And
Speaker 1: one of the things I did is gave a number
Speaker 1: of amendments to other Republican senators for them to drive forward.
Speaker 1: So Cindy Hide Smith, Senator from Mississippi, introduced this amendment
Speaker 1: that said, if you've committed a crime against children, states
Speaker 1: can prevent you from voting. Miraculously, Michael, this amendment passed,
Speaker 1: and Angus King, who is an independent from Maine, although
Speaker 1: he votes exactly like a Democrat, he voted yes. He said,
Speaker 1: I'm a parent, and so if you commit a crime
Speaker 1: against kids, states can say you can't vote. And I argued, forcefully, like,
Speaker 1: why is it Democrats think our democracy would be better
Speaker 1: if child molesters were voting. When I think of what
Speaker 1: the country needs, the enlightened views of child molesters is
Speaker 1: not high on the list. So once Angus voted for that,
Speaker 1: and he's like, well, you're not going to have a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of other amendments onto other crimes. And I said, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I do have a whole bunch of others, but I'll
Speaker 1: just do one. So I pulled up mine, which was murderers.
Speaker 1: I said, okay, you've agreed child molesters. States can say
Speaker 1: they can't vote. How up murders people convicted of the
Speaker 1: felony a murder. Angus King voted, noted that the Democrats
Speaker 1: voted it down. So every Democrat of the committee voted
Speaker 1: that it should be illegal. For states to say murderers
Speaker 1: can't vote. That that's how radical these guys are. Well,
Speaker 1: and it's not even to say, because people will you
Speaker 1: confuse the federalism of it all. All you're suggesting here
Speaker 1: is that states should have the right to determine whether
Speaker 1: or not murderers can vote. That even that was too
Speaker 1: much for the Democrats. Yeah, to be clear, my amendments
Speaker 1: were not requiring a standard, whether it is photoid for voting,
Speaker 1: whether it is barring criminals from voting. Under the Constitution,
Speaker 1: the principal responsibility for those decisions of the states. Now,
Speaker 1: I will say this in discussing it, there is an
Speaker 1: argument that some on the writer making, which is that
Speaker 1: this whole bill is on constitution. I actually think that
Speaker 1: argument is probably not right. That the way the Constitution
Speaker 1: is drafted, the states have significant responsibility for structuring elections,
Speaker 1: but Congress also has the authority to promulgate standards, and
Speaker 1: so it's a concurrent jurisdiction. So I think it is.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a valid argument to say Congress
Speaker 1: can't legislate here. What I do think is a valid
Speaker 1: argument is that Congress shouldn't be repealing the laws of
Speaker 1: twenty nine states when it comes to voter ID thirty
Speaker 1: one states when it comes to restricting ballot harvesting, that
Speaker 1: Congress should respect the state laws that in turn reflect
Speaker 1: the values of their citizens. This is an important point
Speaker 1: because there are a lot of conservatives, I think, who
Speaker 1: just want to say, oh, well, we don't need to
Speaker 1: worry too much, because because the courts will strike it down,
Speaker 1: and so you're making the point, actually that might not
Speaker 1: be a bulletproof argument. But then there's also the practical
Speaker 1: political reality here, which is that when we rely on
Speaker 1: the courts very often we're disappointed. So probably we're gonna
Speaker 1: want to fight against this now. Well, and it's worse
Speaker 1: than that. I don't think the courts will strike this down.
Speaker 1: And here's why. If the Corrupt Politicians Act passes into law,
Speaker 1: it will be because the Democrats have ended the filibuster,
Speaker 1: because they have rammed it through on fifty votes. It
Speaker 1: will be because Joe Manchin and Christen Cinema gave in.
Speaker 1: If that happens, the Democrats will also pack the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. They'll put four left wing justices on the court,
Speaker 1: and a packed Supreme Court with four left wing justices
Speaker 1: will uphold the Corrupt Politicians Act. So the current Supreme
Speaker 1: Court would certainly strike down significant elements of this bill,
Speaker 1: but a packed Supreme Court with four new left wing
Speaker 1: justices will rub or stamp this. And so the filibuster
Speaker 1: is the whole ball of wax in terms of stopping this.
Speaker 1: And this is really about, you know, Michael, if you
Speaker 1: look at what the Democrats are trying to do, I'd
Speaker 1: really break it into two baskets. What is bad policy?
Speaker 1: They want to do things that are just bad policy.
Speaker 1: Massively high taxes, massively high regulations, open borders, massive trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars in spending. All of that is bad, it's harmful. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but all of that can be undone. If Republicans take
Speaker 1: majorities again. We can cut taxes again, we can cut regulations,
Speaker 1: we can try to cut spending all the Historically that's
Speaker 1: harder to do. But bad policy can be undone. There's
Speaker 1: a whole separate, separate category that the Democrats are trying
Speaker 1: to do that is rigging the game, that is changing
Speaker 1: the rules. And what falls into that HR one the
Speaker 1: Corrupt Politicians Act, making DC a state to get two
Speaker 1: new Democratic senators and packing the US Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: those are designed to change the rule because I think
Speaker 1: Democrats believe if they enact those, they stay in power
Speaker 1: the next hundred years. That Republicans can't win if millions
Speaker 1: of illegal aliens and millions of criminals are voting. And
Speaker 1: that's why they want to do it, particularly if you
Speaker 1: have a partisan federal election commission that is a political
Speaker 1: weapon going after Republicans at the behest of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 1: They believe, I think quite reasonably, that that will ensure
Speaker 1: they win for a long time to come. That's why
Speaker 1: this is the whole edgelata. Senator, you've sufficiently depressed me
Speaker 1: about the corrupt politicians act. So now, because a wise
Speaker 1: man once said that it is always darkest before it
Speaker 1: goes totally pitch black, we have to address the other
Speaker 1: topic that you were working on today, which is the
Speaker 1: gun grab. Democrats are trying to pass big gun control.
Speaker 1: You were there, you were in the room. What's it
Speaker 1: look like and how do we stop it? Well, it's
Speaker 1: the Constitution Subcommittee, the Senate Judiciary Committee. I've been the
Speaker 1: chairman of that committee for a number of years. I'm
Speaker 1: now the ranking member because we're in the minority, so
Speaker 1: center Richard Bloomenthal from Connecticut is now the chairman. He
Speaker 1: had a hearing on so called ghost guns. I mean
Speaker 1: you said it's always darkest before it goes pitch black.
Speaker 1: I guess it's fitting that pitch black is when the
Speaker 1: ghosts come out. I showed up. Irritatingly enough, this hearing
Speaker 1: was at the exact same time as the markup for
Speaker 1: the Corrupt Politicians Act. So what I talked about on
Speaker 1: the hearing unquote ghost guns and what is a ghost gun?
Speaker 1: I mean, to be honest, who the hell has heard
Speaker 1: of a ghost gun? I mean, you want to talk
Speaker 1: about a made up phenomenon, and it's designed to be
Speaker 1: really scary, like, oh, ghost guns? What? What? What the
Speaker 1: heck are those? They're handmade guns. They're they're people, they're
Speaker 1: hobbyists who make handmade guns. They make guns from kits.
Speaker 1: They order different kits online and they assemble them. And
Speaker 1: the reason this is a made up problem is there
Speaker 1: is zero evidence, like, like nothing, nada, that handmade guns
Speaker 1: are producing any violent crime at all. Like it It's
Speaker 1: a totally made up And so I kind of unloaded
Speaker 1: on the Democrats this morning, and I said, look, you've
Speaker 1: got a hearing on a totally bogus threat, but it's
Speaker 1: designed to be scary and frankly, they're taking advantage of
Speaker 1: ignorant liberals who don't really know anything about guns and
Speaker 1: a ghost gun that they want to use a term
Speaker 1: that sounds really frightening. Yeah, but I said, what are
Speaker 1: you next going to hold a hearing on civil war
Speaker 1: replica canons? I mean, they're not being used in crimes.
Speaker 1: You want a hearing, You want a hearing on gun crime.
Speaker 1: Gun crime is a serious problem. How about have a
Speaker 1: hearing on Chicago and New York and Philadelphia and how
Speaker 1: left wing gun control laws aren't working. That's actually a
Speaker 1: real hearing. But they don't want to do that. And
Speaker 1: what I talked about also in my opening comments, I said, listen,
Speaker 1: why is it the Democrats are trying to do this?
Speaker 1: Because number one, their objective is not going after actual
Speaker 1: gun crime. It is stripping the Second Amendment rights from
Speaker 1: law abiding citizens. That the people that build homemade guns
Speaker 1: are collectors. Frankly, if you're a gang banger in Chicago,
Speaker 1: you're not making a homemade gun. You're buying an illegal
Speaker 1: gun on the black market that you're murdering people with.
Speaker 1: I mean that's where the guns come from. But here's
Speaker 1: what this is all about. And it was interesting Bloomenthal
Speaker 1: at his opening statement, he said, look, these are untraceable,
Speaker 1: and untraceable is meant to be scary. They want to
Speaker 1: be able to trace every firearm in America because they
Speaker 1: want a registry of every firearm in America. And I
Speaker 1: put it out. I said, listen, Heidi and I own
Speaker 1: a number of firearms. There is no government list of
Speaker 1: the firearms we own. It's none of your damn business
Speaker 1: what firearms we own. You want to find out what
Speaker 1: firearms we own. Come into our house at night, you'll
Speaker 1: find out what firearms we own. Look like it is.
Speaker 1: And for the big government liberals, they want a registry.
Speaker 1: And the reason they want a registry is if you
Speaker 1: look at countries throughout history that have confiscated firearms, it
Speaker 1: always starts with a registry, a list of what guns
Speaker 1: does Michael Knowles own, so that when they come knock
Speaker 1: on the door, they say, okay, mister Knowles, you've got
Speaker 1: a rifle, you've got a shotgun, and you've got a
Speaker 1: thirty eight revolver. Produced the guns now we're seizing them.
Speaker 1: And so I am fighting tooth and nail against a registry.
Speaker 1: This whole ghost guns thing is a made up bass topic. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because what they want is a registry of every gun
Speaker 1: to be able to confiscate. Before we go. We're as
Speaker 1: always pressed for time before we go, We've got to
Speaker 1: touch on this Israel issue. We have to touch on
Speaker 1: it because I don't understand anything about it, and I
Speaker 1: think most people, frankly, are looking at this conflict, the
Speaker 1: Israel Palestine conflict. It seemed to have been fine. Everything
Speaker 1: seemed to be going pretty well for the past four years.
Speaker 1: You had lots of new peace treaties. We happened to
Speaker 1: be doing episodes. We were in DC during those peace treaties.
Speaker 1: You were there at the signing of them. And now
Speaker 1: everything's gone to hell in a handbasket. What went wrong?
Speaker 1: Weakness causes violence and aggression. Terrorists like weakness. They're encouraged
Speaker 1: by weakness. You know, I had dinner, I think week
Speaker 1: before last, with David Friedman, who was the former US
Speaker 1: Ambassador to Israel under President Trump. David is a good friend.
Speaker 1: Four years of President Trump, you saw the Palestinian attacks
Speaker 1: on the Israelis on Americans dropped dramatically and it was
Speaker 1: because I believe President Trump drew a line in the
Speaker 1: SANUS as we stand with Israel. There was no ambiguity
Speaker 1: about it. What did Joe Biden do when he came
Speaker 1: in immediately put ambiguity about it. Immediately. One of the
Speaker 1: things Biden started to doing is he sent over one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars to the Palestinian Authority. Now, the Palestinian
Speaker 1: Authority is the quasi government of the Palestinians within Israel.
Speaker 1: It is in what's called a unity government with Hamas.
Speaker 1: Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's explicitly a terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: Hamas and the Palestinian Authority they pay bounties to terrorists.
Speaker 1: So if you're a Palestinian terrorist and you strapped dynamite
Speaker 1: on a vest and you walk into a mall and
Speaker 1: you detonate the dynamite and you murder women and children
Speaker 1: a moss and the Palestinian Authority will pay your family
Speaker 1: a ongoing stipend for the rest of their lives. And
Speaker 1: it's a major budget item that they want to encourage.
Speaker 1: So it's the government spending money to pay the families
Speaker 1: of terrorists as rewards for them murdering Israelis. And murdering Americans. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago, Congress passed a law called
Speaker 1: the Taylor Forsac. Taylor Force was a Texan. He was
Speaker 1: a veteran who was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in Israel.
Speaker 1: And the Taylor Forsack says, US tax collet dollars will
Speaker 1: not go to any organization that rewards terrorists, that pays
Speaker 1: the families of terrorists as a reward for them committing
Speaker 1: terror What did Joe Biden do in the first couple
Speaker 1: of months in office. Base basically ignored the Tailor Force
Speaker 1: Act and started paying hundreds of millions of dollars to
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authorities. So Joe Biden is sending your tax dollars,
Speaker 1: my tax dollars to fund hamas in their payments to terrorists.
Speaker 1: And you know what, the terrorists see that and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: this Biden administration is weak. They won't stand with Israel.
Speaker 1: So let's start firing rockets. And they're firing rockets. They're
Speaker 1: firing hundreds of rockets at Jerusalem, at Tel Aviv, all
Speaker 1: up and down Israel. And by the way, not only
Speaker 1: is the Biden administration not doing anything meaningfully about it.
Speaker 1: But you've got democrats like Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tali.
Speaker 1: Omar accused Israel of carrying out acts of terrorism because
Speaker 1: it's trying to defend itself against rocket attacks aimed at
Speaker 1: civilians and it's trying to take out the terrorists. And listen,
Speaker 1: I tweeted this week, why is a member of Congress
Speaker 1: acting as the press secretary for Hamas? And this is
Speaker 1: contrast at six months ago, we were seeing historic peace
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. Why because the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and the US government was clear and unequivocal,
Speaker 1: We stand with Israel, and no one wanted to screw
Speaker 1: with us. Now because Biden is not able to be
Speaker 1: clear and unequivocal, suddenly they want to screw with Israel
Speaker 1: and they want to screw with us. And this is
Speaker 1: it's a manifestation of the failures of Biden's foreign policy.
Speaker 1: It's night and day. I remember when John Kerry, but
Speaker 1: before he was trapesing all over the world stopping the
Speaker 1: sun monster. When John Kerry was the Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: he said that it is not possible to solve the
Speaker 1: Israel Palestine conflict. It is not possible. Rather, to solve
Speaker 1: the Middle Eastern conflict more broadly, without first dealing with
Speaker 1: the Palestinian conflict. And the Trump administration comes in and says,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think that's true. I think we're
Speaker 1: going to just deal with all of these other Arab
Speaker 1: states and we're gonna get peace deals with those separate states.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats said that was not possible. What happened
Speaker 1: for the last several years, we've seen lots and lots
Speaker 1: of peace. Three now that seems to be falling apart.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, Senator, a bit of a
Speaker 1: depressing show on the voting rights, on the guns, on
Speaker 1: the international diplomacies. Is there any glimmer of hope here?
Speaker 1: I think the markup today on the Corrupt Politicians Act
Speaker 1: was very beneficial in one since it showed just how
Speaker 1: radical and extreme the Democrats were. I mean, when every
Speaker 1: Democrat on the committee voted to allow murderers to vote,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty extreme vote. When every Democrat on the
Speaker 1: committee voted to allow millions of illegal aliens to vote,
Speaker 1: that's an extreme vote. When every Democrat voted to maintain
Speaker 1: the amnesty for millions of illegal aliens voting illegally, that's
Speaker 1: an extreme vote. You know, there's another provision we talked about,
Speaker 1: the six to one match of federal funds, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, welfare for politicians. One of the things I
Speaker 1: did at the markup today I went through what every
Speaker 1: Democrat on the committee had raised in Q one in
Speaker 1: the first quarter of this year, and I went through
Speaker 1: how much they would get under the match, and some
Speaker 1: would get a million. Angus King I think would get
Speaker 1: like seven hundred fifty dollars, he got virtually nothing. The
Speaker 1: Democrat who got the most was John assaf who was
Speaker 1: just elected out of Georgia, and he would get a
Speaker 1: little over eleven million dollars in federal funds. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a bunch of money, eleven million dollars. So the
Speaker 1: senator who would get the most on the committee was
Speaker 1: yours truly. And last quarter in Q one of this year,
Speaker 1: I raised five point three million dollars five point three
Speaker 1: million dollars. Ninety eight percent of that came from contributions
Speaker 1: under one hundred dollars. I think the average contribution, if
Speaker 1: I remember Wright, it was either forty one or forty
Speaker 1: seven dollars. I forget which one it was, but it
Speaker 1: was forty something five point three million dollars six to
Speaker 1: one match. Now there's a cap. So what it would
Speaker 1: have meant is I would have gotten twenty four million
Speaker 1: dollars from the federal government. And I asked the Democrats,
Speaker 1: I said, why do my Democratic colleagues want to give
Speaker 1: my campaign twenty four million dollars in federal funds? This
Speaker 1: is asinine. I don't want the funds. I'd like to
Speaker 1: go raise the funds. By the way, if you're watching this,
Speaker 1: go to Ted Cruz dot org and make contribution. I
Speaker 1: welcome those funds, but I'm not interested in taking federal
Speaker 1: taxpayer money. And every Democrat voted to give my campaign
Speaker 1: twenty four million dollars in federal funds. I mean it's
Speaker 1: asinine because their priority is staying in power, and so
Speaker 1: they want billions of dollars of federal funds going to
Speaker 1: their campaign. So as incumbents, they have massive amounts of
Speaker 1: money and they can crush any challenger. And I gotta say,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer began the hearing by the markup by giving
Speaker 1: this this sanctimonious speech, and it was a speech about
Speaker 1: Jim Crow. And I responded shortly thereafter, and I said, look,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer rightly talked about Jim Crow. Jim Crow was shameful,
Speaker 1: it was racist, it was big. Jim Crow laws were
Speaker 1: written by Democrats, they were implemented by Democrats, and the
Speaker 1: purpose of Jim Crow laws was to keep Democrats in
Speaker 1: power forever. Now I recognize today's Democrats and the corrupt media.
Speaker 1: Their narrative was, well, that was the Democrats of a
Speaker 1: long time ago, but not today. I said, listen, this
Speaker 1: bill today is Jim Crow two point zero. This is
Speaker 1: designed for the same purpose, which is to prevent the
Speaker 1: voters from throwing the bumbs out, to prevent the voters
Speaker 1: from voting Democrats out when they embrace socialism, when they
Speaker 1: embrace open borders, when they pack the Supreme Court, when
Speaker 1: they advocate abolishing the police. The Democrats want the voters
Speaker 1: not to have the power to vote them out. And
Speaker 1: how do they do that. They do that by registering
Speaker 1: millions of illel aliens, allowing criminals to vote, and making
Speaker 1: the Federal Election Commission a partisan weapon to target Republicans.
Speaker 1: This is all about disenfranchising voters, just like Jim Crow.
Speaker 1: And I gotta admit to say Democrats didn't like that
Speaker 1: would be something of an understatement, and I think there
Speaker 1: is value just shining the light and explaining what it
Speaker 1: is they're trying to do. I think that's true. And
Speaker 1: you know, a guy who's going to turn down twenty
Speaker 1: four million bucks probably doesn't care what the Democrats say
Speaker 1: about him on the committee. Twenty four million bucks. You know.
Speaker 1: I guess there is the glimmern thing. I guess the
Speaker 1: glimmer of hope is no matter. If they'd upped it
Speaker 1: to twenty five, I might have been up open to it,
Speaker 1: That's exactly. And I suppose there's got to be a
Speaker 1: number somewhere. But if you think you're having a bad day,
Speaker 1: you're looking at the politics all around the world, you
Speaker 1: say everything's going to hell in a hand basket. At
Speaker 1: least you didn't have to turn down twenty four million
Speaker 1: dollars today like Senator Cruz did. We have to leave
Speaker 1: it their senator. But we will be back soon. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode
Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you
Speaker 1: by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee
Speaker 1: dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the
Speaker 1: country in twenty twenty two. Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack
Speaker 1: plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and
Speaker 1: help the Republican Party across the nation.